PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BELOCURA Y PEREZ

FACTS:

Reynaldo Belocura was charged with illegal possession of 1,789,823 grams of marijuana. He was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and pay a fine of P500,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Belocura appealed for his acquittal.

On March 22, 1999, Chief Insp. Divina received a call tipping him off about a robbery to be staged in Manila. He formed a team and proceeded to the site where they spotted Belocura driving a jeep with a spurious government plate. They blocked Belocura's path, approached him, and introduced themselves as policemen. They arrested Belocura after confiscating his pistol. The team searched Belocura's jeep and found a red plastic bag containing two bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspaper. The jeep and the red plastic bag with its contents were turned over to the General Assignment Section of the police headquarters.

Forensic Chemist Insp. Coronel received the red plastic bag containing the marijuana and conducted a chemical examination, which concluded that the submitted specimen tested positive for marijuana.

Belocura denied the charge and claimed that he was on his way to work at the time of the incident.

Belocura, a police officer, was on his way to work when he was stopped by about thirty police officers who ignored his identification as a police officer. He was disarmed, handcuffed, and taken to the WPD headquarters where he was locked up and interrogated about his alleged involvement in a robbery hold-up. Three days later, he was informed of the drug-related charge that would be filed against him. Belocura denied owning or possessing the bricks of marijuana found under the driver's seat of his jeep and asserted that they were physically impossible to be found there. He claimed that his arrest was possibly due to his arrest of a suspect, who turned out to be the nephew of Captain Sukila, and his refusal to release the suspect as requested by Captain Sukila. Belocura did not personally know Chief Insp. Divina, the arresting policemen, or the reason for the charges against him. He argued that his warrantless arrest was unlawful and that the search and seizure of the marijuana were illegal. The RTC convicted Belocura and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine. The CA affirmed the conviction. Belocura appealed, arguing that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the search and seizure violated his constitutional rights. The OSG countered that the arrest and search were valid and that any irregularity was cured by Belocura's failure to object to the validity of his arrest before entering his plea. The Supreme Court concluded that a reversal of the conviction was justified.

The accused, Belocura, was arrested by the police for violating a traffic rule on the illegal use of a government plate. During the arrest, the police conducted a search of Belocura's vehicle and discovered bricks of marijuana. Belocura argues that his arrest and the subsequent search were violations of his constitutional rights because there was no probable cause for the search.

The court, however, found that Belocura was caught in flagrante delicto, meaning he was caught in the act of committing the crime. This type of arrest does not require a warrant and is valid under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was justified because Belocura was violating a traffic law in the presence of the arresting officers. The police were authorized to search his person and effects to ensure their safety and seize any weapons or evidence related to the crime.

The RTC relied on the testimonies of Chief Insp. Divina and SPO1 Rojas to establish Belocura's possession of the marijuana bricks and subsequently convicted him. However, the court notes that the corpus delicti, or the evidence of the crime, was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Belocura was caught in flagrante delicto violating Section 31 of Republic Act No. 4139.

  2. Whether the corpus delicti of the crime charged was established beyond reasonable doubt.

  3. Whether the testimonies of Chief Insp. Divina and SPO1 Rojas were sufficient to incriminate Belocura.

  4. Whether the failure to present PO2 Santos as a witness against Belocura affected the case.

  5. Whether the Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug and the custody of the evidence.

  6. Whether the failure to prove the chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana broke the evidentiary chain, thereby affecting the case.

  7. Whether the chain-of-custody requirement applies in this case.

  8. Whether there was a failure to establish a complete chain-of-custody.

  9. Whether the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana bricks.

  10. Whether the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. Belocura was caught in flagrante delicto violating Section 31 of Republic Act No. 4139. The arrest was valid and the arresting policemen had the authority to conduct a search on his person and effects for weapons or any other article that may be used in the commission of the crime or is the fruit of the crime or may be used as evidence in the trial of the case.

  2. The corpus delicti of the crime charged was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of Chief Insp. Divina and SPO1 Rojas failed to directly prove the possession of the prohibited drugs by Belocura.

  3. The testimonies of Chief Insp. Divina and SPO1 Rojas were insufficient to incriminate Belocura. Their testimonies lacked personal knowledge and were not based on their own perception. Therefore, their testimonies could not be accorded probative value.

  4. The failure to present PO2 Santos as a witness against Belocura affected the case. PO2 Santos was the arresting officer who actually seized the marijuana bricks from Belocura's vehicle. His testimony was necessary to establish Belocura's possession of the marijuana bricks. Without his testimony, Chief Insp. Divina's account of the seizure was deemed worthless.

  5. The Prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug and the custody of the evidence. There was no accounting for the custody of the confiscated marijuana from the moment of seizure until it was offered as evidence in court. The failure to authenticate and lay a foundation for the introduction of the evidence cast doubt on the actual conduct of the search and raised suspicion of planted evidence.

  6. The failure to prove the chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana irreparably broke the evidentiary chain. The Prosecution failed to establish a connection between the marijuana allegedly seized from Belocura and the marijuana presented as evidence in court. This failure affected the chain of custody and weakened the Prosecution's case against Belocura.

  7. The chain-of-custody requirement applies in this case as it ensures the identity and integrity of the evidence presented, particularly in drug-related cases.

  8. There was a failure to establish a complete chain-of-custody as the prosecution failed to present a key witness who had direct knowledge of the seizure and confiscation of the marijuana bricks. This failure to establish the first link in the chain-of-custody rendered the evidence inadmissible.

  9. The prosecution failed to establish the links in the chain of custody, which casts doubt on the seizure and confiscation of the marijuana bricks. Therefore, the corpus delicti was not credibly proved and the incriminating evidence cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

  10. The guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's weak incriminating evidence was countered by the accused's denial of possession and knowledge of the marijuana bricks. The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused was not overcome, and therefore, he must be acquitted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In flagrante delicto means being caught in the very act of committing a crime. Positive identification by an eyewitness is a direct evidence of culpability.

  • The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are possession of the identified prohibited drugs, unauthorized possession, and conscious and free possession.

  • The police officer who actually recovers the prohibited drugs should be presented as a witness to prove the fact of possession.

  • Testimonies must be based on personal knowledge and derived from the witness's own perception to be accorded probative value.

  • The failure to present a necessary witness can affect the strength of the Prosecution's case.

  • The Prosecution must establish the identity of the prohibited drug and account for its custody from the moment of seizure.

  • The chain of custody must be proven to link the confiscated evidence to the evidence presented in court. The failure to prove the chain of custody can break the evidentiary chain and weaken the Prosecution's case.

  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires unwavering exactitude in establishing the corpus delicti, including the establishment of every fact necessary to constitute the crime.

  • The chain-of-custody requirement, found in Section 21(a) of Republic Act No. 9165, ensures the identity and integrity of the seized items, specifically drugs, and is applicable in prosecutions for drug violations.

  • The chain of custody is essential in establishing the link between the seized item and the evidence presented to the court.

  • Testimony about a perfect chain is not required, but an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable when the seized item is not readily identifiable, its condition is critical, or there is a risk of alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution, or exchange.

  • Failure to establish a complete chain-of-custody renders the evidence inadmissible.

  • The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof arises from the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution. The accused has no burden of proof as to his innocence.

  • In criminal prosecutions, every evidence favoring the accused must be duly considered. Mere suspicion of guilt, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment against the accused.